Of course Hollande never made that promise. He promised, and undertook, to redress the injustice done to a strictly limited (100,000 pensioners or so) by the sweeping measure of your beloved Sarkozy, who could not be bothered with such trifles. Such was his commitment and nothing more, as I already documented. Your coming back to this proven lie shows you for the low-level propagandist that you are.

My point is very simple. It has always been. Hollande promised to return to the retirement age of 60. He never made any precision during his campaign that it would be "strictly limited to (only) 100,000 pensioners or so". Had he done so then perhaps it would have been more excusable. This is blatanty dishonest and unacceptable demagogy.
Even pandering to, according to you, a 'mere' 100,000 with an extra life expectancy from the year of retirement (60) of an average of 23 years, is incoherent in any case.
The rest of your comment, again unnecessarily personal, doesn't deserve any allusion or response.

Okay, quote his campaign program (60 proposals) pleeease.
And be warned, I have it on my desktop... Hint, retirement is Proposal # 18.
"Hollande promised to return to the retirement age of 60" in your dreams!!! Go ahead, quote, quote, if you can!!!
It _is_ necessary to get personal with disinformers. But being a conciliatory sort of person I'll agree to put it down to your less than sterling command of French.

I don't have to quote anything because there's precisely nothing to quote regarding this subject. The fact that I think this, is already indication enough that he hasn't clarified it.
I'm affirming that part of Hollande's campaign was to revert to the retirement age of 60. Neither during his campaign nor since, has he stipulated clearly and publicly that this retirement age only applies to 'a targeted few'. Had he done so then naturally he would have been more honest. Again my point is simply that this was a demagogical ploy, one of several to win the elections.
If, as you maintain, I'm wrong, then prove it.
Refer me to an article quoting Hollande clarifying publically 'that this measure will only apply to a targeted few' or words to that effect.
If you can't, then you would owe me an apology for all your unnecessary personal remarks which are counterproductive to any intelligent exchange, as well as childish.

Further to your last reply. Again I've found nothing clear and categoric regarding Hollande's retirement proposal in spite of your 'hint'.
The Express however, that has been totally pro-Hollande and antiSarkozy right up to the elections, published this on the subject in mid March. Perhaps you should insult the Express as well for accusing Hollande 'd'entretenir le flou..'http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/politique/retraite-a-60-ans-hollande-en...

Not my fault if a simple net search is beyond your capacities. "The fact that I think this, is already indication enough that he hasn't clarified it." is a strange argument.
Here is the link to his official programme. Not to media-concocted pseudo-analyses on the right and the left.
hxxp://download.parti-socialiste.fr/projet_presidentiel_2012_francois_hollande.pdf
(for some reason TE's spam filters go berserk on the link when in normal shape, fear of REd contamination maybe? replace x with t)
Scroll down to point 18, page 10, and once again tell me where a promise of a general return to retirement at 60 is even hinted at.

It seems as if the biggest flaw in the modern liberal democracy is the ability of the governed to vote themselves endless benefits, whether that be redistribution of wealth (tax the rich) thru social programs or other measurese to take from the 'haves' and give to the 'have nots'.

Unfortunately France, nor any other country, can survive in an economic vacuum. There are too many emerging economies out there like China, India, Malaysia, etc. that will gladly produce the world's goods for much less and have yet to have the burden of expensive social welfare programs drag down their competetiveness.

In the end - you get the government you deserve (or vote for). Unfortunately - this is not the time to try - yet again- socio-economic experiments that didn't work the first time. But then again - I guess there are still communist parties out there - so humanity often has to re-learn the painful lessons of the past.

I know the most do not understand German but who cares - it is time studying German.

There is another article at France24 which deliver an insight into French world:

"In brief statements in Paris both leaders made conciliatory gestures: Hollande indicated he was ready to discuss further integration -- though France is loathe to cede sovereignty to Brussels -- while the German chancellor hailed measures to promote eurozone growth"

The point is, during Hollande's campaign was and today it is his political agenda,
that he promises some things which France is unable to pay if nothing else is cut.
So it was clear, right from the beginning, that France would need more money.

So, but the hammer, is the confrontation course towards Mrs. Merkel. He clearly says,
he opposes the course set and would like, instead, more spending and funding debts.
That is like have had lunch and pass on the check to someone else. Moreover, France denied giving any rights of control to Germany but insists on receiving money or on sharing debts and interest rates with Germany.

It is the same tenor as before as the euro was introduced. France once denied a political union and put the euro first - Germany put the euro AFTER a political union. France's position was the euro would lead to a political union with all its means. France forced its point and today - we are in the mess which had been foreseen from Germany.

And even today - as history shows - France is pushing the same fatal errors on Europe, Germany, again. It is a scandal how rigorous and impertinent Mr. Hollande intents to grab into the German wallet. All he says - and it does not matter which word for Germany he uses - he constantly aims that Germany must shoulder more and more and even more and tomorrow even, even even more burdens for the will of solidarity, which means indeed for France.

You read much in Hollande's few and far between words. What you read reflects your inner fears and prejudices, rather than what what he really has in mind. You are like Harpagon (I know that most do not know Molière but who cares - it is time to start getting an education): everything you hear and see must be thieves with their sights on your precious kitty. "Ma cassette!" Come on. We are not that desperate. And those who are most in need of solidarity are those with high bond rates, which is not our case.

The really interesting issue is that fresh bone of contention about further federalism. Merkel is perfectly right to insist that more common commitment by European countries (including Germany but also France and others) needs more common supervision and steering of the debt, to avoid free riding by carefree borrowers. Hollande is playing hard to get and claims to be "loath to lose sovereignty".

This is a puppet show. Hollande always has been a committed EU-federalist. But the lesson of the 2005 referendum, where he came down very clearly for the "yes" (more integration), and was defeated by a motley mix of rightist "sovereignists" and leftist protectionists, is extremely vivid and painful for him; the Socialist Party is still deeply split over the issue, with Fabius, his current Minister of Foreign Affairs, still discreetly cultivating his old sovereignist followers.

Hollande named Fabius a State Minister because he hopes that this will effectively silence him; "cabinet solidarity" binds much more strongly than mere party solidarity, which Fabius happily trampled in 2005. However the President is well aware of the latent influence of isolationism, sovereignism and protectionism (all of which he personally dislikes; all of which are, individually, held by a minority, but could merge into a rejectionist majority, as happened in 2005...) in the French population and, more worryingly, in his own party. His inner circle says that he will never come down in favor of further federalism and risk another 2005-like clash and near-schism.

So I think he is playing Merkel, leading her to demand this federalist advance (which he'd really like to happen) in exchange for a more generous approach on the debt issue. In the end he will "give in", swallowing the unavoidable jeers of the extremists around him (he's used to being called a wimp and makes the most of it, just ask Sarkozy). Merkel will be able to agree on some kind of debt mutualization while claiming victory, which is important for her own political standing; Hollande can afford a temporary loss of political ground in France, while she has no such maneuvering room in Germany, hence the tit for tat. Both will be secretly quite happy about the outcome, while loudly complaining about the other's - how did you say - rigor and impertinence, if only to improve the public perception of both as hard-boiled negociators.

This is my own humble view to be sure, but yours is jaundiced and prejudiced to such an extent that it begs credibility.

Thanks for your reply.
Your view does not humble and I respect it.
"This is my own humble view to be sure, but yours is jaundiced and prejudiced to such an extent that it begs credibility."
Well I wrote what I learnt from France and its European policy. Some are not used to, but I write to the point and clear.
If I were like Harpagon what is Mr. Hollande like? I think that you are well-educated enough bringing in facts. What I wrote it how it comes around when Mr. Hollande urges for more solidarity.
And I cannot remember that France gave a 640 billion credit to European countries. So do yourself a favor. The only one who behaves like the one you mentioned is France. Because la grande nation pushed Germany to bail-out its banks. So why does Mr. Hollande not open its wallet and grant Europe 640 billion euros if the Germans should not make such a fuss?
I think some in France should accept reality and stop denying at which position France is. France - you think can afford because its 10 years bonds are at 2.5%?
Never mind that the current account since around 2004 is in deficit?
Actually all Mr. Hollande promised and urged is against all odds to be shouldered by Germans. Because it is so clear that France is unable to afford - it asks for solidarity and Europe. Paris placed its national interest always first and was always keen on receiving money from Berlin. And the tone and way Paris urges Berlin has been and will be rigorous and impertinent.
Sorry, the Mr. Hollande forges alliances against Berlin in order to damage Berlin.
I cannot see that a friend would behave like Mr. Hollande did. So the question arise: does France stand on Germany's side because Germany stood on France's side as it asked for help. And no matter, Germany will help France again again.
But the tone and behavior are essential. Mr. Hollande must have know it.

"- it is time studying German."
LMAO, is your language that the globalisaion worship?, it's only spoken for less than 100 mllion persons
uh Merkel is but for acceptin "mutualisation of the german Landers debt, funny no?
It's OK for Germany indebted states, because they are German, and not for the European's, hey who do you think she can fool with her discourses?
Germany for the Germans, that's OK, but forget us for your great dream of a EU/Germany project !
Escuse-me but the only country that had a free ride for EUrope money is Germany,http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-koo-the-entire-crisis-in-europe-s...http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-23/merkel-should-know-her-country-...
give us a favor, leave the euro !!!!
sure your elite knows how much it will cost, es is mir Scheiss egal, the Germans aren't the populations that contribute to the world progress today
Oh bTW, France would like that ECB plays its role of central bank for the EZ countries, and, not being blackmailed by the Bundesbankhttp://pragcap.com/the-euro-debate-gets-philosophical

You seem to know German so you are able to the article in FTD?
Euroland is not a federal country. So it might be better you do not compare what is different. Not even the US bail-out its states. Some states made hard experiences about that.
Concerning the costs of a eventual exit - hmm, France would be in need to fill in Germany's position of money lending. Obviously France would be unable to and the currency would devaluate or break up before.
Today the ECB is not a copy of the Bundesbank. Nor does the ECB make Bundesbank like policy. Malta has the same percentage of vote as France in the governing council. I do not know which kind of paranoia you are infected with but German's positions found no majority in this council.
What France intends to is a unlimited access to the money press.
But through target II it is possible for countries to print money and France printed money in this way. It is not only Germany which grants other countries of the euro credits - there are Luxembourg, Netherlands and Finland as well.
So let me sum up: 5 countries gave credits and 12 take credits. Good perspectives.

I'D PREFER READING ABOUT YOU, POINTING YOUR NWO FINGER ON A RETURN OF A LAW SEPARATING RETAIL BANKS FROM MERCHANT/DERIVATIVES BANKS, A BAN OF BLACK POOL TRADING OR FRACIONAL RESERVE DEBT/SEIGNORAGE, RATHER THAN THE SAME-OLD REFRAIN OF A FAILURE-FREE MARKET VS. EVIL STATE SECTOR. PLEASE

France is simply voting for more money and for more prosperity. This has worked for a generation so to the French voter, why not vote for more money (debt) again? To the French voter the problem is not that debt is now 90% of GDP, the problem is that evil spirits (bankers) need to be exorcised.

The French economic plan is simple enough, borrow more and exorcise all evil spirits away.

Non sense. No investment in public goods will drive France economy down. Fiscal reforms do not work if there is economic development. Government has to put money in the market in order to stimulate growth in the private sector. France should protect its job market and chase down those financial predators that contributed to this global depression by trading on toxic assets. Tax the rich and protect public goods.

That tired old chestnut again. Please, this is the 21st Century, internet, fast trading, all that. Nobody lives in the attic above the shop anymore. The truly rich are completely disconnected, investment-wise, from the soil they live on - as it should be. The jobs they will take with them are those of manicures, gardeners and limo drivers, stopping there to stay on the good side of TE moderators. Plush real estate agencies will suffer, and real estate in Paris and the Riviera will go back to reasonable. Hardly a catastrophe.

The rich are welcome - they add diversity - but they'd fool themselves if they thought themselves needed here. There would be no difference for us if they ran their businesses from business-loving California, enjoying the prohibition of foie gras and open air smoking.

(There are exceptions of course, no need to remind me of that... But entrepreneurs like Yves Rocher, who created a successful cosmetics factory and franchise so as to develop his native bit of Brittany, are hardly typical.)

I disagree that the Economist assessment that the situation in France will readjust like it did with Mitterrand, Today is far different then it was when he Mitterrand came into power.

Most likely Investors and companys will leave France and then the bond market will close (PIMCO or any large institution isn't going to think seriously about buying French bonds now), leading to the same Cycle as the PIGs the worse Economic conditions will cause ever more extreme socialism and depression in the country.

I think its a grave mistake to think and take for granted that things can only get better, if History and the rise and fall of civilizations tell us anything, things don't always get better, they can get much much worse.

If you "eliminate the shorts", you then eliminate one of the checks which keeps government from being even more frivolous with your money. Were it not for the threat of shorts, currencies would have even less value than they do now. As for French bonds, if things continue as they have been, the value of the bonds will become less than the paper they are printed on.

France has long been a European bastion of socialism, and there are still many who are vociferous in their belief of this absurd ideology. How often it has been attempted, and how often it has spectacularly failed, yet there are still those who believe in such nonsense. Having no religion, they still have the natural need to believe in something greater than themselves. Belief in the state is as much an opiate as conventional religion, and they continue to believe, despite the universal failure of all "people's states" since socialism has come into being.

This is really getting comical, this obsession with Hollande.
Can't you see government is too big, can't you see those public employees are just sticking to hard-working (of course!) entrepreneurs like a leech ? So come on people, wake up and listen to the advice of "The Economist" : leave it to the financial markets, they work wonders, they have this awesome ability to regulate themselves and your life. If there's a lesson we should all learn from the Bush years, it's that government that governs least governs best. Deregulation, my friends, is key to non-communist paradise.

If a government is socialistic then it has to dig deeper into the coffers to be more people friendly . This necessarily will lead to more taxes and liberal pro labor policies resulting in strikes. In the longer run the country will be facing huge deficits and financial problems.

I am an ex Anglo Saxon colonial now living permanently in France, arguably the most civilized country in the world. I am so glad that we have a President who dares to challenge the crude capitalist system that has resulted in graft, corruption, tax avoidance and which rewards the executives of failed banks and organizations with captive markets taking home exorbitant wealth. Investors take heed France has a great number of intelligent, well trained and hard working people and it will NOT fail and if it looses a few multimillionaires along the way - who cares. The faster the better!

I suppose there is no such thing as corruption or graft in government? At least with businesses we have the option of not giving them our money, with governents, they take it, whether you want to pay or not. There are no captive markets, but there are captive populations. The rich will leave because they and their money will be welcomed elsewhere, only the poorer classes will remain, and they will then be the ones who will have to pay.

Ironic that Mr Hollande is one of France's biggest multi-millionaires. Perhaps in a few years he will be the last one,

I suppose there is no such thing as sleaze or graft in business? At least with governments we have the option to kick them out, as Mr Sarkozy discovered. Whereas the average shareholder has no say at all on corporate policies, or on boardroom plots.
As for Hollande being one of France's biggest multimillionaires... OK, this article is a militant one, aimed at eroding France's creditworthiness and accordingly peppered with lies, with posters' contributions to the effort most welcome, but you're pushing it a bit too far. Exposing yourself in the process.

Despite sharing your admiration for the French, I have a wake-up call for you: France borrows money, over 90% of the GDP at this moment, from the "crude capitalist system that has resulted in graft, corruption, tax avoidance and which rewards the executives of failed banks and organizations with captive markets taking home exorbitant wealth." And with these new policies of Hollande, it will need to borrow even more from the same system, so it will have to come to terms with it. Eventually...

Despite sharing your admiration for the French, I have a wake-up call for you: France borrows money, over 90% of the GDP at this moment, from the "crude capitalist system that has resulted in graft, corruption, tax avoidance and which rewards the executives of failed banks and organizations with captive markets taking home exorbitant wealth." And with these new policies of Hollande, it will need to borrow even more from the same system, so it will have to come to terms with it. Eventually...

Despite sharing your admiration for the French, I have a wake-up call for you: France borrows money, over 90% of the GDP at this moment, from the "crude capitalist system that has resulted in graft, corruption, tax avoidance and which rewards the executives of failed banks and organizations with captive markets taking home exorbitant wealth." And with these new policies of Hollande, it will need to borrow even more from the same system, so it will have to come to terms with it. Eventually...

In times of Euro football championship, it is never too much to recall the role played by the French national team (similar to what happened in Africa 2010, but in a smaller proportion).
Assuming that a good national team is the one that better represents the people it stands for, then the ‘bleus’ are definitely among the most exemplary teams ever.
I mean: just like ‘dribbling’ may be the Brazilian people most typical quality, and ‘performing systematically like it was trained’ may be the best German feature (both with reflexes into these countries’ national soccer teams)… what could be more typically French then ‘going on strike’?

do you assume that a team that hires only nationals is the best option, like the German team with no players from Turkish immigration ?

the French should only hire players from french clubs, and not suburban primadonnas that got the melon in foreign clubs where they are paid billions, and that have no civil education

Hope that the experience of two championships will put some lead into the french soccer federation

BTW, this has nothing to be compared with a government, then it would be like if we had Soros, Krugman, Stiglitz... and diverse other antagonist economists who are all stars in their domain as ministers

No no... I never meant that players with foreign origin should be kept out of the national team.

Let us not forget that the most sucessful French team ever came up with a similar composition of players with a multitude of roots . Yet, all of them were French... and there were no complains whatsoever ( probably just fot the reason the managed to win a lot... and apart from Le Pen and his wacky followers). The same applies for Germany.

What I meant is that a National Football team can be taken as a sample from a given society. You can extend this to several aspects, such as the ethnic make up, values, attitude towards victory/defeat, discipline, etc.

And thus, let us not forget too that the people of a democratic country is for sure among the biggest responsibles for the government, sice they voted for it.

yes... what a whole lot of BS. Most of the media hype about how he's going to be turning France into communism has already evaporated... but the economist still stands ground against reality... Dear editors, in elections people do cook hotter than they eat their dishes. Call it lies or real-politics I don't care. But thought you'd know this by now. No? Well, we'll speak again in 5 years.

PS: Oh one more thing Chief Editor... thought I'd point out that one of the measures he helped put forward in the Euro discussion is that austerity alone doesn't work. You may not like the style, but isn't this something that you've propagated on your recent front cover of that sinking oil ship where it says: "Ms. Merkel, can we turn on the engines now?". Perhaps you should check your own coherence... just sayin'